Mr. James Doorley:

It is an important point. Young people who use Facebook and other social media sites are being invited by some drinks companies to design their own alcopop bottle, share their design with friends and perhaps win a prize. That type of activity creates an atmosphere in which alcohol is fun and exciting. Senator Jillian van Turnhout mentioned television advertising. In our study in 2009 young people were asked for their favourite advertisements. I was not surprised that alcohol advertisements were so well represented. It is not surprising, given that the companies concerned spend millions on them. They are excellent examples of marketing, but they are driving young people to drink in greater quantities, more frequently and at a younger age. The whole purpose of these advertisements is to create an association between alcohol and fun, sport, popularity and success and we should not be surprised when young people respond to them.

On the role of education and information, 15 years ago or so our organisation was very strong in arguing for their efficacy. However, all of the international evidence suggests that without action on price and other issues, information and education will have a very limited impact. There is no reason we cannot invest in educational strategies, but it is not an even contest when we, for example, expose young people to a course over six weeks on the dangers of alcohol while, at the same time, drink is marketed everywhere, easily available and cheap. In that environment education and information will not work.

On the introduction of a social responsibility levy, we made that proposal to the national substance misuse strategy steering group as an alternative to the drinks industry being involved directly in campaigns. In a context in which the industry had at the time a turnover of some €25 billion, we suggested a very small levy could bring in €25 million to €30 million per annum. That money could then be hypothecated by the Government for information campaigns or assigned to sports bodies. We have put the same proposal to the Department of Finance in our last two or three pre-budget submissions. It is really along the lines of the polluter pays principle, the polluter in this case being an industry that is causing damage in our society. It would be a very small contribution in the context of the costs I mentioned, but it would be something.

Senator Colm Burke mentioned the attitudes of young people and how we might influence them. What they learn from parents and family certainly has a role to play, but there is probably very limited action the Government can take in this regard. What it can do is take steps to redress the balance. Our view is that the balance has swung too far in terms of price, availability and marketing promotion. We are not anti-alcohol, but we are saying the balance is not right and that we are seeing the negative consequences of this. The Government must seek to rebalance matters in order to protect children, younger people in particular.

On the question of a levy on alcohol advertising, we would prefer to see more restrictions and a ban on certain advertising rather than a levy.

Our view is that we have had the recommendations, the group has been set up and the research conducted. We do not agree with those who say we need more consultation and dialogue and that we can change things by working for a change of culture around drinking. We would not have reduced the incidence of dangerous driving by having a discussion about the culture of dangerous driving. We would not have brought forward the smoking ban in having a discussion on the culture of smoking in pubs. These changes were achieved by the Government in taking legislative action to introduce measures that were evidence-based, not just nationally but internationally, and they have been proved to have had an effect. That is why, although we would like to see it strengthened in certain aspects, in overall terms, we welcome this legislation very strongly.